I'm not sure about Topeka - but Denver certainly do (they have an outdoor and an indoor enclosure).
Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden Cincinnati Zoo Hippos
- Thread starter RhinoHippoElephantGiraffe
- Start date
I'm not sure about Topeka - but Denver certainly do (they have an outdoor and an indoor enclosure).
In terms on on-site spots, the best place I could think of is the now-empty bull elephant yard. Even that's hardly ideal because while the yard itself is probably an okay size for a bull hippo, the pool is most likely too small. Would that the female elephants weren't there, their and pool would be much better for hippo (though I'm hardly the first to fantasize about keeping hippo on the site of elephant, but this is me pulling the reins on my fantasies) All the while there is the lack of a pool inside the actual elephant barn.
Harambe was not the zoo's fault, they had no choice. The zoo should not be blamed for that incident. The hippo situation on the other hand is entirely their own making.
The bull elephant yard actually housed a lone hippo long ago when Cleopatra was still alive. In actuality, she occupied a yard half the size of the current bull yard, and was just fine in the tiny pool, relatively speaking. By relatively, I mean she lived a long life and didn't get maimed or killed by any conspecifics. She actually was reputed to be very tolerant of her neighbor Gretchen, an older female African elephant.
Problem is, there isn't any indoor holding for hippos in the current elephant house. All of the water basin areas were filled in and built over to make more room for the elephants.
A lot of movement should be forthcoming with the elephants eventually leaving for their new exhibit in a year or 2. Then the giraffes into the elephant building. Hoofed stock has largely been shipped out in the Africa main yard.
The zoo rarely surprises me in a pleasant way these days, but it would be nice to see them use some of that space in Africa for a more appropriate hippo holding. It does nothing for the current problem, and more immediate action likely needs to be taken. My point is, if you're going to empty out your exhibits in Africa, then you might as well use the space for a species that's poorly housed. It would totally botch the East African theme that was originally intended, but I wouldn't be mad if Africa eventually housed hippos, okapis and bongos in some configuration. Zoogeographic themes are largely arrangements of convenience in Cincinnati with respect to recent history, so it wouldn't really hurt anything.
San Diego is keeping their two female hippos in the former Indian Rhino exhibit in the meantime whilst their usual enclosure is renovated. That enclosure has a pool (abliet a small pool), but they seem to be managing fine. So, I don't necessarily think the size of the pool will mater; the enclosure may do in the meantime for Tucker.
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
But didn't @groundskeeper24 say that there isn't any indoor holding in the elephant house?
No indoor pools, which aren't necessarily needed for indoor hippo housing overnight.
Access to submersible water is a husbandry requirement for this species as they have no control of water loss from their skin. In addition to submersible water, night yards typically have sprinklers - but I wouldn’t consider these adequate on their own for a sustained period e.g. every night for 8-10 hours.
What are San Diego's plans? Glad to see that a zoo plans to make its space for hippos better. Hopefully, Milwaukee will be able to provide more space for their hippos once their indoor space is renovated as well.
Werribee don’t have submersible indoor pools, but I think they give their hippos outdoor access at nights.
I don’t think they’re expanding the space, more so renovating the current enclosure; improving it for them.
I too am hopeful re. Milwaukee. Their outdoor enclosure isn’t huge so improving the indoor facilities seems the best way to go.
Another consideration regarding the Elephant House as emergency hippo housing is climate. Cincinnati is obviously not San Diego. Durning certain times of year, indoor water features could be the only water features that the hippos would have access to.
You're wrong. They should not have shot Harambe or even tranquilized him. I am fully aware of the situation. No animal should ever be killed or slaughtered because of human accidents or stupidity. If Harambe wasn't shot, there could have been extensive legal and financial troubles for the zoo, potentially even meaning closing, which would also have been devastating. I imagine that Cincinnati would be much less popular, even if legal cases ended up being more favorable, but in the end, it would have all come down to the support of this institution along with their mission of conservation. This will be a radical view, but I think it is worth sharing.
So your view was to leave the child in the enclosure with a 440 pound silverback? Keep in mind, it was a child in their too. The child didn’t say ‘hey, I’m going to go and jump in the gorilla enclosure’. The boy was three. So, it wasn’t an act of human stupidity. The boy was simply trying to get a better view of the gorillas, and his mother (rather irresponsibly) allowed him to climb up the barrier, and thus, fall in. The mother’s irresponsible parenting caused this- it wasn’t the child’s fault, and the mother wasn’t in the enclosure was she, it was the child.
I think you really need to consider the above statement- it can be quite disrespectful.
If you've joined this forum with the sole intention of debating the Harambe situation (I note this is your first post), this isn't the forum for you.
The zoo weren't at fault as has been stated (and explained) by @Great Argus and othert members and any further discussion on this is counter-productive given the highly emotive nature of this incident. It's also largely irrelevant to current issues re. hippopotamus management.
I will not be discussing this further as I don't wish to give this disruption to the forum any more of a platform than it's already had.
Actually, according to the law, @Great Argus was right and the zoo did have no choice. I'm not about to debate the pros or cons of these laws, but US laws about dangerous animals requires that zoos shoot to kill in cases of escapes or other instances in which human safety is compromised. Like it or not, according to the law the child's life was more important than the gorilla's life (again, I'm not saying this is morally correct or incorrect), and because of this Cincinnati Zoo had no legal choice other than to shoot Harambe.
Persephone
Well-Known Member
Cincinnati would’ve 100% been on the hook for a lot of lawsuits if the child had died. They’d be out millions before legal fees and loss of revenue. I don’t think that helps advance the zoo’s purposes, either.
Also a kid could have died.
The zoo might deserve blame for allowing the situation to happen in the first place, but they acted responsibly when it did happen.
Also a kid could have died.
The zoo might deserve blame for allowing the situation to happen in the first place, but they acted responsibly when it did happen.
I typically find it hard to blame zoos for egregious visitor trespass. It's usually some kid that the parents aren't watching that manages to get themselves through the barriers because they're too young to know that what they're doing is wrong. Or sometimes it's adults being outright stupid - SDZ's recent incident with the guy taking a baby into the elephant enclosure for example. He crossed two barriers with multiple other members of the public yelling at him to get back behind the fences. That's not the zoo's fault for the incident.
The zoo had to make a terribly difficult decision and make it quickly with Harambe. Nobody felt good about it from any angle. It's easy to want to sacrifice a stranger's 3 year old child when you have no connection, but to say it should have been left to chance is pretty unempathetic. Potential death at the hands of a silverback gorilla is a steep price for a little kid to pay for being an unruly patron.
I was talking with a zoo operations staff member once who said something along the lines of "unless you are dealing with orangutans or octopus, then nine times out of ten the barriers are designed to keep people out, not to keep the animals in." Oftentimes zoo visitors assume it's the other way around, and that the barriers are to keep the animals in, but in fact it's dumb rule-breaking people that are more likely to cause problems.